A Blind Judge?

Published: February 6, 1992

Senator Alfonse D'Amato has recommended a blind lawyer for a vacancy on the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. Even in this age of increased opportunities for the disabled, the Senator's candidate, Richard Casey, pushes the outer boundaries of what the judicial system can accommodate.

If Mr. Casey is otherwise qualified, his candidacy poses a novel and powerful challenge to the Justice Department and President Bush, who must decide whether to nominate him. Sincere people will have strong reservations about fitting this particular disability to this particular office, but a blind nominee cannot be categorically ruled out.

Mr. Casey, who is 59 years old, is a former Assistant United States Attorney in Manhattan and an experienced litigator who lost his sight five years ago. He has undergone extensive training and equipped himself with electronic gear that scans printed material and reads it aloud to him. He thus can do much of the work of a lawyer despite his severe disability. But how well can he do the work of a trial judge?

Presiding at a Federal civil or criminal trial calls for supervising a courtroom of lawyers, witnesses, spectators and the contesting parties. Federal judges do most of the questioning of prospective jurors and routinely weigh the credibility of witnesses in non-jury cases. The ability to make eye contact has almost universally been assumed indispensable for the task of trial judging.

Without eyesight, a judge can't personally observe every lawyer's or spectator's illicit attempt at improperly influencing a jury, such as hand signals or silent demonstrations. And he cannot see for himself what impact a trial exhibit, say an inflammatory poster, might have on a viewer.

Two decades ago Justice John Marshall Harlan lost most of his vision yet continued to serve on the Supreme Court with the highest distinction for many years. But that Court doesn't hold trials; the work there is vastly different. Appellate judges deal with printed records and legal briefs and oral arguments, while trial judges must interact constantly with live participants and swiftly changing situations.

To address these problems, Senator D'Amato had Mr. Casey meet recently with Chief Judge Charles Brieant and two other seasoned trial judges. They reported themselves persuaded that Mr. Casey might well overcome his disability and meet the job's demands. Examining their own experience, the judges found that they had overrated both their ability to detect a deceitful witness and the extent to which they relied on visual observation for weighing credibility. As for unscrupulous lawyers tricking the judge, they speculated that only rarely would a lawyer risk getting caught at such maneuvers.

If Mr. Casey now persuades the Bush Administration to nominate him, the disability question will need thorough airing in Senate confirmation proceedings. To his burden of blindness must be added the burden of proving he is so experienced and able that he can beat a large handicap. If he can meet that test, he will have earned the job.